
During a recent interview with one of Chancellor Wrighton’s former colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a Student Life news reporter encountered evidence for a different Mark Wrighton than we’re used to seeing here at Washington University. Magic Mark, as he was nicknamed in Cambridge, reportedly put on chemistry magic shows to the delight of both MIT students and the general public-a far cry from the chancellor we have come to know over the past six years of his tenure here.
Such a discovery has highlighted some of the current differences and
problems with past WU chancellors as well as the structure of the university’s administration as a cohesive whole.
Clearly, Magic Mark is working a different kind of magic here at WU than at MIT. Even looking at the phenomenal success of the Campaign for Washington University alone (more than $970
million has been raised to date in an effort aimed at accumulating $1.3 billion by June 30, 2004), we can make no
mistake that Chancellor Wrighton is adept at accomplishing set priorities.
Yet Chancellor Wrighton functions primarily as an outside figure. His administration stands in contrast with that of his most recent predecessor, Chancellor William Danforth (Chan Dan) whose tradition of reading
bedtime stories to students in the Swamp made him beloved.
Certainly, the editorial board does not mean to suggest that we feel
neglected at bedtime. This chancellor whose attention is focused primarily on the world beyond the Hilltop has done, and continues to do, tremendous work for the university. Furthermore, top
university officials whose backgrounds are increasingly strong in business
related skills represent a trend in
academia today.
But despite the university’s continuing success, students are confronted with a troubling question: who is in charge of the internal workings of the university? To whom do we direct our questions and concerns, and who is ultimately accountable to us?
Many universities deal with this issue by having two top officials: one to serve as an outside representative and to keep locked up in the Ivy Towers (such as a president or chancellor), and an interior chancellor, often called a provost. In this way, there is both someone ultimately accountable to the students on the Hilltop as well as someone with an eye to the outside.
But this example of the interior/exterior chancellor issue is symptomatic of larger questions about the university management. WU employs a largely
collaborative body of administrators. This web-like administrative structure, analogous to Gerald Ford’s miserably failed `spokes of the wheel’ approach to presidential advisement, results in students’ difficulty both in knowing where to go to get a question answered as well as getting a direct answer.
In the words of Vice President Cheney (Ford’s chief of staff, after he realized he needed one) the failed spokes of the wheel approach didn’t work because someone has to be in charge. These words echo our sentiments precisely: we need someone ultimately accountable to students inside the university. It is abundantly clear that the chancellor is not this person, and for this we don’t blame him. It’s simply too much to expect of one man to toss a frisbee in the Quad with students after a long day of raising millions of dollars or advising President Bush on science policy. And while the web-like structure of administration below him is great for collaboration, it is similarly great for avoiding accountability. Something along the lines of a more linear structure of authority and accountability is in order if WU is best to serve its students.
When President Carter was elected, Cheney left Hamilton Jordan, Carter’s incoming adviser, a mangled bicycle wheel with a note that read Dear Ham. Beware the spokes of the wheel. We urge Magic Mark and his tangled web of administrators to reflect on their management approach, lest the chancellor’s successor and the students of WU end up with a similar inheritance.