George Mason University President Angel Cabrera's Response to Faculty Senate Resolution Against Renaming Law School After Justice Antonin Scalia
Content
TO:
Faculty Senate
FROM:
Ángel Cabrera, President
SUBJECT:
Faculty Senate Resolutions
Thank you for the continued dialogue surrounding the recent gifts to the Law School. I
have reviewed the three resolutions, and was also in attendance for the presentation
that Dr. Keith Renshaw and Dr. Alan Abramson made to the Development Committee
of the Board of Visitors on May 5. Their in-depth explanation of both the substance and
underlying concerns of the Faculty Senate resolutions was appreciated by all Visitors in
attendance at that meeting. The committee chairman and the Rector both publicly
expressed appreciation for their comments, and I too want to thank them for their
candor and clarity on these important issues.
Regarding the requests made in the first Faculty Senate resolution (dated Apr 27)
submitted by Drs. Alan Abramson and Suzanne Slayden, I wrote a letter that was
distributed on April 30, 2016. I am also working with my staff to develop a more
detailed communication outlining several efforts in relation to the specific requests
made in that resolution in the area of diversity and inclusion. This communication will
be distributed as soon as possible.
Regarding the requests made in the second Faculty Senate resolution (dated May 4)
submitted by Dr. David Kuebrich, the Board has decided to stand by its resolution
regarding the law school naming and continue with the application for SCHEV
approval. However, I wish to offer the following clarifications in reference to the
concerns that accompanied this resolution:
1. The law school naming gifts do not require complex organizational changes or
the investment of university resources. The gifts will fund new scholarship
programs. The additional tuition that is generated from the increase in
enrollment will then be used to invest in new faculty positions and centers. The
university is not committing any of its own resources to fund these positions and
centers. This strategic plan developed by Dean Butler is part of a long-term
strategy of the Law School to increase their stature and generate greater
enrollment. Should enrollment growth projections not materialize, the school
will be required by the university to adjust its resources accordingly. In the
meantime, faculty hiring will be managed based on actual enrollments and
projected market demand.
2. The administration retains the authority to appoint or remove the dean of the law
school. It is a customary courtesy to inform major donors of significant changes
in the programs they support, with or without written agreement. Neither
adjustments in funding nor donors’ influence will dictate the administration’s
authority to replace the dean for whatever reason deemed appropriate.
3. It is not unusual for major gifts to be paid out over time and this is no exception.
In the unfortunate case a donor could not or chose not to fulfill their
commitment, the university has a number of options, both legal and
administrative, at its disposal. The Law School faculty will retain its academic
integrity with regard to the school’s intellectual mission, and that will not be
impacted by adjustments or changes to funding.
4. The law school has earned national recognition in the field of law and economics.
Not surprisingly, it regularly attracts contributions from individuals and
organizations interested in that field. Professor Henry Butler demonstrated great
success at fundraising as head of the Law and Economics Center and has shown
to be equally effective in this endeavor as dean. Specific concerns and evidence of
unethical conduct by any faculty member should follow our regular process as
specified in sections 2.10.2 and 2.11.2.1 of the Faculty Handbook.
5. New centers proposed by the law school will be vetted through the established
university process. The Standing Committee on Centers was created in 2012 to
provide impartial comment, and review and evaluate requests of centers
following approved guidelines. In addition, the committee reviews and evaluates
requests for re-chartering existing centers.
Regarding the questions about gift acceptance policies and processes in the third
Faculty Senate resolution (dated May 4) submitted by Dr. Suzanne Slayden, I have asked
Janet Bingham, Vice President of University Advancement and President of the George
Mason University Foundation, to provide specific responses.
Again, I thank the Faculty Senate for their thoughtful and important input on this and
other issues. I look forward to working closely with the Faculty Senate to advance this
university’s mission and commitment to inclusive excellence.
Faculty Senate
FROM:
Ángel Cabrera, President
SUBJECT:
Faculty Senate Resolutions
Thank you for the continued dialogue surrounding the recent gifts to the Law School. I
have reviewed the three resolutions, and was also in attendance for the presentation
that Dr. Keith Renshaw and Dr. Alan Abramson made to the Development Committee
of the Board of Visitors on May 5. Their in-depth explanation of both the substance and
underlying concerns of the Faculty Senate resolutions was appreciated by all Visitors in
attendance at that meeting. The committee chairman and the Rector both publicly
expressed appreciation for their comments, and I too want to thank them for their
candor and clarity on these important issues.
Regarding the requests made in the first Faculty Senate resolution (dated Apr 27)
submitted by Drs. Alan Abramson and Suzanne Slayden, I wrote a letter that was
distributed on April 30, 2016. I am also working with my staff to develop a more
detailed communication outlining several efforts in relation to the specific requests
made in that resolution in the area of diversity and inclusion. This communication will
be distributed as soon as possible.
Regarding the requests made in the second Faculty Senate resolution (dated May 4)
submitted by Dr. David Kuebrich, the Board has decided to stand by its resolution
regarding the law school naming and continue with the application for SCHEV
approval. However, I wish to offer the following clarifications in reference to the
concerns that accompanied this resolution:
1. The law school naming gifts do not require complex organizational changes or
the investment of university resources. The gifts will fund new scholarship
programs. The additional tuition that is generated from the increase in
enrollment will then be used to invest in new faculty positions and centers. The
university is not committing any of its own resources to fund these positions and
centers. This strategic plan developed by Dean Butler is part of a long-term
strategy of the Law School to increase their stature and generate greater
enrollment. Should enrollment growth projections not materialize, the school
will be required by the university to adjust its resources accordingly. In the
meantime, faculty hiring will be managed based on actual enrollments and
projected market demand.
2. The administration retains the authority to appoint or remove the dean of the law
school. It is a customary courtesy to inform major donors of significant changes
in the programs they support, with or without written agreement. Neither
adjustments in funding nor donors’ influence will dictate the administration’s
authority to replace the dean for whatever reason deemed appropriate.
3. It is not unusual for major gifts to be paid out over time and this is no exception.
In the unfortunate case a donor could not or chose not to fulfill their
commitment, the university has a number of options, both legal and
administrative, at its disposal. The Law School faculty will retain its academic
integrity with regard to the school’s intellectual mission, and that will not be
impacted by adjustments or changes to funding.
4. The law school has earned national recognition in the field of law and economics.
Not surprisingly, it regularly attracts contributions from individuals and
organizations interested in that field. Professor Henry Butler demonstrated great
success at fundraising as head of the Law and Economics Center and has shown
to be equally effective in this endeavor as dean. Specific concerns and evidence of
unethical conduct by any faculty member should follow our regular process as
specified in sections 2.10.2 and 2.11.2.1 of the Faculty Handbook.
5. New centers proposed by the law school will be vetted through the established
university process. The Standing Committee on Centers was created in 2012 to
provide impartial comment, and review and evaluate requests of centers
following approved guidelines. In addition, the committee reviews and evaluates
requests for re-chartering existing centers.
Regarding the questions about gift acceptance policies and processes in the third
Faculty Senate resolution (dated May 4) submitted by Dr. Suzanne Slayden, I have asked
Janet Bingham, Vice President of University Advancement and President of the George
Mason University Foundation, to provide specific responses.
Again, I thank the Faculty Senate for their thoughtful and important input on this and
other issues. I look forward to working closely with the Faculty Senate to advance this
university’s mission and commitment to inclusive excellence.
