Did anyone else receive the book from Morty touting the "new NU" being built from the funds raised through the "We Will" campaign? It does not look like the NU we attended - or a school I'd want to attend. Too bad. It also indicates that NU raised sooo very much money that it can afford to publish several hundred pages of promotional garbage printed on thick glossy pages and ensconced in a hard cover and to send thousands of copies to donors and others. - upsetting many of them in the process. What a waste - I hope it is at least recyclable. I pity the task Fitz has when I see this stuff. Geez!
Book from Morty
- Thread starter Aging Booster
- Start date
Apparently sometimes it’s good to be a decidedly small wheel who never attracts the attention of the powers that be.
I have not seen the book (I am not a big donor, though I can make a helluva lot of noise at a basketball game), so I can only speak generally.
Having worked for nearly a decade in strategic planning for non-profits, there is justification for producing high quality visuals and accompanying promotional materials for donor stakeholders when ambitions go big. You need someway to communicate on a large scale with donors, and in most cases the ROI on these "investments" are through the roof. You might spend a million to raise hundreds of millions.
That said--and again--not having seen what NU aspires to--institutions like NU have a unique ability to muster phenomenal amounts of resources in the name of societal benefit. As the scale of fundraising increases dramatically, I hope schools like NU think very carefully about how to invest stakeholder capital.
Teaching and learning is very tough to scale. MOOCs and other online offerings have democratized learning to an extent, but no one is going to become a top notch cancer researcher, Nobel-worthy biochemist, or energy system revolutionary from online learning. NU is a (relatively) small university for really, really exceptional young people. Doubling or tripling its size probably cannot happen without a new campus, but even at that scale does it offer that much greater societal impact? It is a good question debate. I think I would rather see NU expend at least some of those resources to make its exceptional education more affordable, and work much harder to create educational opportunities for underserved.
Much more to say, but I don't want to write War and Peace in one post...
Having worked for nearly a decade in strategic planning for non-profits, there is justification for producing high quality visuals and accompanying promotional materials for donor stakeholders when ambitions go big. You need someway to communicate on a large scale with donors, and in most cases the ROI on these "investments" are through the roof. You might spend a million to raise hundreds of millions.
That said--and again--not having seen what NU aspires to--institutions like NU have a unique ability to muster phenomenal amounts of resources in the name of societal benefit. As the scale of fundraising increases dramatically, I hope schools like NU think very carefully about how to invest stakeholder capital.
Teaching and learning is very tough to scale. MOOCs and other online offerings have democratized learning to an extent, but no one is going to become a top notch cancer researcher, Nobel-worthy biochemist, or energy system revolutionary from online learning. NU is a (relatively) small university for really, really exceptional young people. Doubling or tripling its size probably cannot happen without a new campus, but even at that scale does it offer that much greater societal impact? It is a good question debate. I think I would rather see NU expend at least some of those resources to make its exceptional education more affordable, and work much harder to create educational opportunities for underserved.
Much more to say, but I don't want to write War and Peace in one post...
Not seeing the book, can you be more specific on what would make it a school you’d not want to attend?
I’m hoping we’ve got artist renderings of a Lazy River, but I’ve heard Norris circa ‘00 is still there, so I doubt it.
If you are ultra "woke" you will have no objections. Otherwise, the message is that NU is not for you...and in fact, does not want you.
Last edited:
Well, I think a lot of "wokeness"--not all of it--is about privileged white people wanting to be told they are OK and not racist or "guilty." I don't need someone to tell me I'm not a bad person, though it is helpful to be reminded occasionally to strive to be better. Outlier examples of guys like Jeffrey Epstein, Hitler, and Bernie Madoff aside, I don't believe in guilt as a highly constructive social phenomena. Guilt is destructive to the psyche when wielded as a weapon. We are all imperfect, and thus "guilty" of being human. Time to go forward from there.
But NU does have a unique opportunity to improve society due to 1) its ability to garner tremendous financial resources and 2) its ability to find really smart people and equip them to innovate and discover things that can make the world better. We need to keep investing in the latter, more than ever.
As for bettering the lives of minorities and the underserved, NU could / should have a role that goes far beyond having more minority students and faculty. That is a very limiting aspiration, IMO. NU should be at the forefront of public health. The medical center downtown is a marvel, but should NU consider opening a community hospital in North Chicago, or South Shore, etc? And should NU considering running a magnet school in south Evanston, or Garfield Park? Education and healthcare are two areas where minorities are often the least served. If NU wants to change the world, instead of simply the makeup of its student body, it should look at these things.
I do not get it. Just what do people feel guilty about? I have lived 65 years without really feeling guilty about anything other than once insulting a guy in 5th grade who really did nothing to deserve my vitriol. Wokeness cannot be about that. Are we now supposed to apologize for being smart, rich, good-looking, and marrying a beautiful woman? Sorry - that makes no sense to me.
The idea is to make more privileged segments of society more aware of the injustices that have occurred for generations, and continue to occur to day, that have hurt minorities and other underserved populations in very damaging ways. There is a very real legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights abuses, "soft" racism, disinvestment in communities of color that has hurt of lot of people in ways you or I cannot imagine.
I think you can understand and accept that the suffering is real. I never really needed convincing of it, but the George Floyd protests and other events made me really start to think about it. Personally, neither you nor I, nor any "average" citizen living today bears any real individual guilt for this. But the point is that these communities need our help in ways that go far beyond words of empathy or expressions of guilt. We need to do better, because it will make our country better.
I'm a type of person who looks for "engineering" type solutions to complex problems, so when I think about the effects of racism and underserving minorities, I think in terms of policy ideas around economic development, public education, public health and social services, policing and crime prevention, criminal justice reform, etc. Most of the other stuff is window-dressing to me. There is an aspect of the woke movement that seems to want to damn all people for their sins, but I have always believed that we are all flawed, and should strive to do better, rather than just focusing on how flawed we are. I actually learned that from Clint Eastwood.
Last edited:
I can feel guilty when I personally do something wrong. If someone suffers through no actions of my own, nor from my failure to act in a way legally compelled, why should I feel guilty? I can feel sorrow or sympathy, but not guilt. I am not responsible for everyone; nor is it incumbent upon me to end all of the suffering in the world. People have suffered for millennia - and always will. We can do nothing to stop it. What am I missing?
You are not missing anything on the issue of personal guilt.
I might suggest trying to be a bit more optimistic on the human suffering front. Despite the fact that I have read a fair amount of Cormac McCarthy, I still believe in something that is bigger and better than myself, and that I can be better tomorrow than what I was today. I think that once you stop believing in a better tomorrow, you are dead.
Perhaps that ship has sailed. If I recall correctly the decision to eliminate the dental school was at least in part motivated by its wasting valuable resources consequent from community involvement that could instead be allocated to medical school research.
Morty’s commitment to athletics is obvious, and I doubt the incoming president will change that. Are athletics central to the NU mission? I doubt it but I cannot say for certain. What I will say is that athletics are an important part of the brand image, and a critical means of alumni engagement and support.
Some might decry the lakefront facilities and WR as a waste of resources that could have gone toward the academic mission. I don’t think those resources would have materialized without athletics.
Some might decry the lakefront facilities and WR as a waste of resources that could have gone toward the academic mission. I don’t think those resources would have materialized without athletics.
Purple only looks good on brown people? It’s never been good on me. Thank God for the gothic jerseys…
My “other” school, UC San Diego has examples of community outreach to the community at-large in both education and health care. Some examples are a community clinic staffed by medical school faculty and students and the Preuss School, an on-campus 6-12 school for economically disadvantaged students. (The school has a great track record of sending kids on to college including schools like Northwestern.) UCSD has also opened a new graduate school of public health which should have an impact as it grows and matures. Just a few examples how this school is impacting the community. We are also one of the region’s largest employers so the economic impact of higher education and the research money brought in is also a big plus.
I'm pretty sure my destitute Irish ancestors were racist, just as they were prejudiced against Italians, Germans, Jews and other immigrants. I don't worry about it.
I grew up in the rural south, divorced family, low working class, and there was a lot of racism in that region. There were also a lot of insults for people with physical and mental disabilities, or really anyone "different". It's regrettable that society was that way, and still is, in many ways.
I do not feel guilty about these things. I worked hard at my marriage, family, career, church. Perhaps some of my opportunities would not have existed if my skin pigmentation was different. But -trying to right past "wrongs" by punishing certain groups will only foster resentment.
What’s that worth on the Internet?
Not to sound cynical, but empathy alone won't solve these problems. Empathy does not hurt, and you cannot have too much of it, but virtue signaling has become its own industry these days. And it is largely a waste of time, energy and resources that can easily distract from what is really needed to address these problems.
Last edited:
Mine came today. I appreciate Morty’s support of NU athletics during his tenure. But he lost me (and many others) the past year with his mishandling of the Mike Polisky situation. Then he allowed the protest to take place during the Iowa football game without punishment. In my view, both events were very public displays of caving to the woke mob and embarrassing to NU.
I have heard that he was aware in advance that the protest would take place. If this is true, there should have been a plan to react appropriately
Maybe they allowed it to take place, i.e., they acted appropriately based on the plan. If NU violently removed them that would had added fuel and made it newsworthy. The poor execution on the part of the protesters - not on the 50 and facing the wrong way - set things up best for NU. Let them do it, everyone forgets about it, and other than a few people, we move on.
I love Morty. I am sure NU Athletics fans will miss him. And he has focused a ton at ensuring diverse representation at Northwestern. Best NU president I've seen. Bienen was not bad but Morty aimed high across the board.
I didn't have an issue with NU's hands off approach to a field protest - pretty much what happens at a university - but I had major heartburn related to (and I may have the details wrong as it has been awhile) Morty kicking off a member of one of their boards for an opinion piece in the WSJ that ran afoul of the social narrative du jour which angered some students and faculty. I don't recall the opinion piece. Complete disemboweling of the principal that universities should support open dialogue. Mr. Fundraiser called me a month or so later. That was a brief call. Said come back next year.
This is also perfect. “I can’t remember the exact reason that I was upset, but you can be damn sure I was once upset.” Masterpiece.
Sadly, the "woke" effort to stifle free speech happens at universities all over the world, including at Northwestern. The final straw for me was the ridiculous survey which was sent to alumni by the Alumni Association prior to Homecoming and Reunions. It requested one's attitude and opinions regarding racial issues, sexual preferences, religious bias, etc. This was the final straw for me, and I have since switched all NU donations, including a substantial amount in my estate plan, to the Wildcat Excellence Fund, which benefits all NU athletics, both men's and women's.
My concern wasn't relative to the issue, it was about NU's response to it. I wouldn't have brought it up other than the topic was NU's response to a field protest - which I also don't recall what it was about. In one case NU ignores and in another case they take action. A WSJ opinion piece no less that you know cannot be off the propriety rails. IMO a university should be supportive of open dialogue consistently and it wasn't.
Mort wrote these paragraphs in a WSJ oped in 2015:
Any attempt to hold people accountable for what they say will rile up the “free speech at any cost” advocates, but any defense of First Amendment rights will lead to campus unrest and hand-wringing. So where to draw that elusive line?
I’m not a lawyer; few university presidents are. But most of us have access to high-powered legal advisers. Sometimes state and federal laws are clear enough to make the decision, but usually they are not. And don’t expect to find agreement among your senior administrators. In a crisis the interests of those in student affairs, public relations, the legal counsel’s office, fundraising and faculty governance seldom align.
What’s a president to do? I have learned over 15 years in this job at two institutions that you better have a compelling reason to punish anyone—student, faculty member, staff member—for expressing his or her views, regardless of how repugnant you might find those views.
Freedom of speech doesn’t amount to much unless it is tested. And if the First Amendment doesn’t matter on college campuses, where self-expression is so deeply valued, why expect it to matter elsewhere?
It sounds like his head is in the right place on the issue. That said, I disagree with the decision to permit those students to interrupt the game, if that was indeed the case, as it violated the rights of the attendees (not that the cost was significant, IMO).
Last edited: