Reflecting upon our time at ASU, a fellow student made the startling claim that President Michael Crow's performance at the helm of ASU has not warranted close to the type of praise it has received. He added that the Arizona Board of Regents should keep a close eye on Crow, and that the possibility of firing Crow should remain on the table.
With all of the positive publicity surrounding the expansion of ASU under the presidency of Crow, it isn't too often we hear the criticism that Crow's policies aren't delivering tangible results. If there is one trait for which Crow is known, it would be his demand for meeting clear, identifiable standards.
Is it possible that many of us in the ASU and greater Phoenix communities have prematurely labeled Crow - the reigning Arizona Republic's Arizonan of the Year, and close ally with well-connected Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon - as the man who will transform our community into an intellectual juggernaut?
The answer to this question is not clear. It's difficult to separate the hype surrounding ASU's expansion from the facts.
The knock on Crow is that in his efforts to move ASU up in the national rankings, and to enhance the academic reputation of the university, he has effectively begun to turn ASU into a business.
Bringing in grant money to ASU has become a top, if not the top, job for researchers, while there are complaints that other programs have been deemphasized because of their lack of revenue-generation for the University.
Of course, these aren't shocking bits of news. Crow has made it clear that ASU is to become the New American University. This new institution of higher learning stems from Crows "rethinking of the organizational paradigms of American research universities."
Personally, I'm still not sure what this means. Apparently, the New American University is about ASU becoming "socially-embedded." The New American University encourages "use-inspired" (read: profitable) research, and it embraces its geographical, cultural and economic environment.
In practice, the New American University is more about new buildings and supporting massive enrollment growth than it is about embedding ourselves in the community, whatever that means.
And if ASU's reputation has improved, as is being reported by ASU administration and the local media, then this is not showing up in the national rankings. ASU's rankings in the U.S. News and World Report and from Princeton Review have not improved in any major, tangible or meaningful ways.
This is not to say that Crow has done a bad job. Rather, we all ought to keep a reserved, rational temperament regarding the performance of Crow and the implementation of the New American University.
We need to ask the hard questions and set real standards for improvement now. As we march down the road of the New American University, with several campuses and the prospect of differentiated tuition (different tuition rates for different majors and programs) on the horizon, we deserve to know from ASU administration what specific goals they will meet.
No more New American University talk. No more buzzwords and clever marketing phrases. The future of ASU, if it is to be as bright as advertised, will require straight-forward discussion and ambitious, tangible goals. Administration should tell us what its specific short and long-term goals are, and why these are worthwhile goals to have.
Now that would be running ASU like a business.
Macy Hanson is a philosophy and political science senior. Contact him at: macy.hanson@asuchoice.com.
