Word: panels
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...classroom has been chosen to judge the Boylston finals. In April, David Steiner '54, general counsel for the University, Preston N. Williams, Houghton Professor of Theology and Contemporary Change at the Divinity School and Mary Anne Schwalbe, director of admissions, will sit on the judgment panel...
...those minutes (now withdrawn by the embarrassed visiting committee which is still in the process of writing the normal milquetoast pap that passes for governing board oversight) also seem to reflect a consensus on the panel--shared by many GSD faculty and students--that Kilbridge's administration has been a "receivership" and that "Kilbridge cannot provide continued intellectual leadership...
...minutes also touch on educational stagnation within the GSD, which in many ways grows from budget balancing moves that have boosted the ratio of student to faculty from 8.3 to 1 in 1969 to 11.5 to 1 this year. For example, the visiting committee record refers to the panel members' "impression of a pervading boredom and lack of excitement." Similarly, the minutes indicate that "several members" saw a need to find a new dean who can "stimulate the sense of purpose and mission which the committee found lacking in both faculty and students, as well as to attract a higher...
Kilbridge's ability to lead the school is also limited by his repeated disingenuousness. The fall 1975 report of a University panel investigating the GSD's decision not to rehire an out-spoken assistant professor in 1969 admonishes the dean several times for being unhelpful. At one point, this report admits that "many" of the panel's five members have a "lingering doubt" whether Kilbridge was "as candid and forthcoming as he might have been." This side of the dean also emerged in 1972 after the Corporation dismissed grievances against him. Instead of seeking reconciliation with the senior professors...
Although the dean made a serious and important mistake in rejecting out of hand CHUL's recommendation and altering the assignment process, Rosovsky's reluctance to accept CHUL's other proposals is understandable. After struggling for a year and considering a variety of alternatives, the panel's recommendations, in essence reaffirming the status quo despite its present flaws, made no progress toward solving the complex housing problem. Despite the complexity of the issue, CHUL's performance provides a sad illustration of its effectiveness as an institution in dealing with matters clearly within its jurisdiction...