During the past six months, The Daily Orange interviewed dozens of faculty, staff and administrators across campus regarding Chancellor Nancy Cantor’s leadership style and academic missions. These stories are a result of that exploration.

Futility. Fear. Distrust.

These are three common themes used by critics of Chancellor Nancy Cantor to describe the atmosphere on campus in her eight-year tenure at Syracuse University.

Cantor has earned a reputation for marginalizing student free speech, vilifying critics and stifling open dialogue. Some faculty, staff and administrators say they have experienced public humiliation and perceive a culture of retaliation. Many others recount stories they’ve heard and say those stories alone make them fearful of crossing the chancellor.

‘The model here is the university will speak when it wants to, you will listen and you won’t disagree,’ said Brenda Wrigley, chair of the public relations department at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.

Cantor and her supporters portray a picture of a dynamic leader with strong convictions who works tirelessly to improve the university. They attribute discontent to a handful of vocal faculty members whose views do not represent the entire campus.

‘I think she’s a visionary,’ said Diane Murphy, dean of the David B. Falk College of Sport and Human Dynamics. ‘I think these issues on campus are stressful for anybody. But she’s a leader, and I think she sees Syracuse bigger than it sees itself.’

A vivid result of the chancellor’s leadership style is a sharp divide of vocal critics on either side. In the middle is a group of faculty, staff and administrators who don’t publicly voice their opinions. Some pay little attention to how university politics play out as long as it does not affect their personal scholarship.

Others say the divide leads to the perception of the administration as an overwhelming force that squashes dissent. Some faculty members refer to the administration building as the ‘Death Star.’ At least 18 people contacted by The Daily Orange for this story did not respond or denied requests for interviews regarding the chancellor’s leadership style and missions. Of the people who did speak with The Daily Orange, 12 requested full or partial anonymity for fear of negative consequences.

The following topics were repeatedly brought up as actions taken by the administration that have led to feelings of fear and distrust:

Student free speech

Cantor’s first brush with student free speech came in 2005, when she shut down HillTV, the precursor to CitrusTV.

The station’s sketch comedy show ‘Over the Hill’ included several offensive and racist jokes, and also poked fun at Cantor. When the sketches became public knowledge, the campus erupted in frenzy. Students and faculty organized town hall meetings to voice their outrage about the show’s content. Cantor sided with the aggrieved groups, levied her own sharp criticism and took swift action against the students at HillTV, said faculty familiar with the situation.

The sketches were parodies meant to be offensive and were fully protected by the First Amendment, said Joel Kaplan, associate dean of professional graduate studies and communications law professor at Newhouse.

Cantor and others outraged by the show rejected First Amendment and free speech arguments.

Cantor met with several Newhouse professors and administrators and told them she wanted to shut down the station. Kaplan was among those who disagreed, and told her a chancellor should encourage good speech, not suppress bad speech. Cantor did not want to hear any opposing opinions, said Kaplan and others familiar with the HillTV controversy.

Later that afternoon, Cantor called in some of the students to discuss the show. When they returned to the HillTV offices after the meeting, they found padlocks on the doors, Kaplan said. The entire station, not just the show that set off the furor, was shut down.

Robert McClure, a retired political science professor, remembers the debate surrounding HillTV as the ‘early crystallizing moment’ that demonstrated the divisive nature of Cantor’s leadership. Rather than evaluating a number of opinions and considering students’ free speech rights, Cantor immediately stepped in and became the defender of the offended groups, fueling a greater divide.

‘She was so overcome by moral outrage, but unable to control and contain it,’ McClure said of Cantor’s abrupt decision to shut down the station.

Other examples involving free speech include the shutdown of a student-run satirical blog in the College of Law, and the expulsion of an education student for comments on his personal Facebook page. Like HillTV, both situations drew national scrutiny and criticism of SU’s free speech atmosphere.

Cantor said although she wishes the situation did not play out exactly as it did, she would still make the same decisions today under the same circumstances. HillTV was student-run but not an independent organization, she said. She described her actions as trying to find a balance between student speech and protecting upset students.

‘It’s very, very important to weigh, in an institution, how you create inclusion and a sense that the campus is for everybody and how you balance that with what individuals can write or say,’ Cantor said.

Inability to accept criticism

From public University Senate meetings to private conversations with administrators, critics say Cantor has a habit of reacting in an icy and rude manner to criticisms, small and large alike. It has led to a sense of resignation among some faculty members who want debate and has eroded the university governance process.

‘There’s a sense of ‘why bother?” said Pat Cihon, member of USen and president of SU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which advocates for academic freedom and shared governance. ‘If you say something critical, Nancy’s minions come after you.’

During USen meetings, Cantor’s disapproval is often accompanied by eye-rolling and interrupting faculty members who raise questions. She’s been known to act more harshly in private settings by pointing and even screaming when questions are raised, according to those who say they’ve witnessed or experienced the chancellor’s displeasure.

Three former administrators and some faculty members all independently described scenes in which Cantor raised her voice to the level of yelling and pointed in people’s faces in reaction to unfavorable situations. These situations range from personal conversations, to meetings with a group of administrators, to a public outburst in a press box when Syracuse lost in the Champs Sports Bowl in 2004.

Kal Alston, whose professional relationship with Cantor predates coming to SU where she serves as senior vice president for human capital development, downplayed Cantor’s reactions to criticism.

‘I think she’s incredibly tough-minded. Do I think she’s sensitive? Yes, and part of that is a reaction to the passions which she holds, the commitments,’ Alston said. ‘I don’t think she’s overly emotional to the point that it makes her unthoughtful or irrational.’

Cantor said she is unsure what people mean when they say she does not take criticism well. She often responds to criticisms immediately when she does not believe they are accurate, especially at USen, she said. Accepting criticism does not always mean changing your mind or telling the critics they are right, she said.

Multiple faculty, staff and administrators also said they are unwilling to express concerns for fear of negative consequences. Cantor denied this, saying she has heard it but does not understand what retaliation people are referring to.

‘We have had endless numbers of really important issues debated either on the senate floor or in various media or in conversation, and it’s still going on and these same people are still in the same positions,’ she said.

Questionable handling of personnel matters

In 2008, several top officials in the Division of Student Affairs and an administrator in the College of Arts and Sciences were let go of or resigned from their positions. Cantor said the administrators were let go due to a restructuring in student affairs based on complaints and the guidance of an external consultant. The change in management is still much talked about across campus and some believe the restructuring was rooted in a controversial judicial affairs case.

The episode started in fall 2007, when a female student in Arts and Sciences filed a complaint with the Department of Public Safety, alleging that Rick Jackson, Jonny Flynn and Antonio ‘Scoop’ Jardine sexually assaulted her. The student declined to press criminal charges against the players but sought a resolution through SU’s Office of Judicial Affairs.

David Potter, then-associate dean of student services in Arts and Sciences, championed her cause in the SU judicial affairs system, arguing the student did not get a hearing after several miscommunications with the students’ lawyers and involvement from the district attorney’s office.

In a letter obtained by The Daily Orange, Anastasia Urtz, then-associate vice president and dean of students, wrote to Potter that a judicial proceeding could begin if Potter or the student could produce new information. Potter was able to produce adequate information and filed on behalf of Arts and Sciences because the student had transferred to another institution. The hearing panel found the players not guilty of sexual assault but guilty of causing the student mental anguish, and all three players were put on probation.

By August 2008, three administrators involved in the case had lost their jobs: Urtz; Barry Wells, senior vice president and dean of student affairs; and Juanita Perez-Williams, associate dean of students. None have spoken to the media since, but Potter and other administrators believe their release was in relation to facilitating the new hearing.

When George Langford began as dean of Arts and Sciences the next year, Potter was working part-time. He had chosen to step down from his position of associate dean of student services when Cathryn Newton stepped down as dean. In what Potter suspects was in reaction to his involvement in the judicial case, Langford told Potter he would have to retire sooner than planned and told him he would need to leave his office space. Potter said he believes Langford was working under orders from the chancellor.

Potter refused to sign a gag agreement that would prevent him from speaking about university matters, including the hearing against the basketball players. It cost him six months worth of salary, offered by SU contingent on his silence. Since he left SU, Potter has been a vocal critic of the way the university handled the case and other matters relating to athletics.

Langford was not part of the specific negotiations of the retirement, including the confidentiality clause, he and Potter said.

Although the incident occurred more than three years ago, it sent shockwaves through the university that still reverberate.

‘After there has been one of these public events, the message goes out to others that if you speak out you may find yourself cleaning out your office,’ said a senior administrator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of negative consequences.

Cantor vehemently denied the firings have any relation to the hearing against the basketball players. The administration received complaints regarding the Division of Student Affairs unrelated to the incident, Cantor said, and hired an outside consultant to evaluate the office. The consultant produced a report that was hundreds of pages long that demonstrated a need for restructuring in the department. The report has not been made public.

‘It was not an individual decision on my part, nor was it begun by me,’ she said. She does not understand why the issue is still in discussion, she said.

Another widely-circulated story of sudden termination is the story of Stan More, former budget director of Arts and Sciences. He was terminated in 2009 after 13 years at the university.

More held his position as budget director for seven years and reported directly to the dean of Arts and Sciences for most of his career. A few weeks after Langford took over as dean, he stopped communicating directly with More and used others to request budget information, More said. Soon, More was told the administration was creating a new position of assistant dean for finance that would oversee More’s position. More applied for the higher position but was not granted an interview, he said.

After the yearly budget was completed, More was called into Langford’s office for what he thought was a routine budget meeting. Neil Strodel, then head of human resources, was also present. The two told More they were eliminating his position because he was performing most of the duties the new assistant dean for finance would handle. They were also creating the position of director of budget and financial analysis, which had a lower grade level than More’s position.

More thought this meant he was being demoted. It wasn’t until Strodel mentioned a severance package that he realized he was being let go, he said.

More said he was then told to leave immediately and to schedule a time the following week for a supervised visit to clean out his office. He lost access to his SU email account within three hours. More said he asked multiple times whether there were issues with his performance but was never given any feedback.

‘It was a brutal ending. I was told I had to leave then, right after the meeting,’ More said. He added, ‘The only thing missing was the handcuffs.’

Langford said this was a personnel decision involving a leadership change and did not comment further. Strodel did not respond to requests for an interview.

More applied for 17 other jobs at SU he believed he was qualified for. He received only one interview.

More does not blame the chancellor for costing him his job. But, he and others said, his treatment made a splash into the pool of rumored injustices that have created a culture of fear.

‘The feedback that I got,’ More said, ‘was that if this could happen to me this could happen to anyone.’

Stories like those of Potter and More hit home for Jaklin Kornfilt, linguistics professor and member of USen who has been at SU for 28 years. Kornfilt said she has never been subjected to any personal intimidation by the chancellor or other members of SU’s central administration. But she and several other faculty say the stories have created a sense of fear.

‘Assuming the stories that have been circulating about More and Potter are true, I thought that even if somebody is fired in the university that things shouldn’t be handled quite in this way,’ Kornfilt said. ‘It simply didn’t fit the image that I had, perhaps naively, about what a university should be, what the atmosphere should be.’

The chancellor and her supporters argue it’s unfair to blame her for all the fear-inspiring episodes and deny that fear is widespread.

‘I think you have to separate – I always do – personnel decisions that come from many complex sources,’ Cantor said. On the notion of retaliation, she said, ‘the word itself makes it sound like it’s a personal vendetta.’

A perception of fear

But even rumors can lead to the perception of a chilly climate where criticism is suppressed. In departments and programs across campus, many faculty and staff are outright unwilling to talk or share their opinions about Cantor’s leadership style. Staff members cite fear of losing their jobs and faculty members cite fear they or others in their departments would be marginalized.

‘Whether it’s real or not, if enough people feel it, it becomes real,’ said Paul Gandel, former chief information officer under Cantor from 2004-08 and a professor in the School of Information Studies.

Two sources independently told The Daily Orange they were informed that other members in the university had access to their email accounts. Both sources spoke only on the condition of anonymity. In one situation, the university’s lawyer told the source some of his or her emails might be read in relation to legal proceedings.

In the other situation, the source was told by the information technology department that after the source’s departure from the university, his or her former boss was given access to the still-active email account.

Courts have ruled employers can sometimes monitor employees’ emails, but both sources saw the outside access as troubling and invasive.

Tom Evans, senior vice president and general counsel, said the university does not ‘monitor’ email accounts, but reserves the right to look at records in the case of legal proceedings or when the university has a fiduciary responsibility. Cantor said she has never ordered someone’s email to be monitored.

Lorraine Branham, dean of Newhouse, said she never experienced or witnessed any vindictive behavior by the chancellor against her critics. Branham has been outspoken in dean’s meetings and feels the chancellor listens to criticism if the case is compelling, she said. She, as well as other deans and some faculty members, characterizes the overall campus atmosphere as calmer than critics suggest.

‘I think there is a small group of people who pay a lot of attention to this because they are critical of her,’ Branham said. ‘I think most people are going about their business and doing the things that they enjoy doing.’

Cantor knows she cannot please everybody and accepts there will be critics of her initiatives and goals.

‘I’m not trying to run a popularity contest. We’re trying to really push an institution forward,’ she said.

But others who express concern about the campus atmosphere call for more efforts by the chancellor to welcome dissent and to consider other points of view. Concerned SU members said it would go a long way toward warming the chilly atmosphere.

‘This administration doesn’t seem to grasp that you can have honest disagreement between well-meaning people,’ said David Rubin, dean emeritus and communications law professor at Newhouse.

Rubin and others in leadership positions said dissent can sometimes create improvements in policy if an administration is open-minded. In his 18-year tenure as an administrator, Rubin said he learned that stories about ill treatment and closed dialogue create a negative atmosphere.

Said Rubin: ‘This would be a happier place if the administration didn’t think it was so right all the time.’

kronayne@syr.edu

-Staff writer Beckie Strum contributed reporting to this article.

-30-

 

Published on April 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm