Metro Pulse/Insights/John Shumaker

Comment
on this story

by Joe Sullivan

Amid all the furor over whether John Shumaker should stay or go as UT president, little attention has been paid to the consequences for the university should he be removed from office.

Shumaker's reimbursement of $29,134 in travel expenses that were partly personal in nature appears to have allayed the immediate pressures on him. But any further revelations of improprieties on his part would almost certainly force his termination. And even if he weathers the storm, his credibility and effectiveness are bound to be impaired for some time to come.

Yet this damage pales in comparison with the harm that would afflict the university if it were to lose its second president in two years to a scandal. UT would become the laughing stock of the nation, not only in academic circles but also with prospective funding sources much needed to augment the meager rations the university is getting from the state.

At the least, the debacle would set back the university's fund-raising efforts and its ability to recruit top-flight new faculty and to fill key administrative vacancies. Attracting a new president of any stature would be rendered all the more difficult than it was when UT managed to lure Shumaker away from the University of Louisville, where he had an exemplary record of accomplishment.

At the extreme, the very existence of UT as it's presently constituted could be threatened. A presidential void could provide the impetus for consolidating the UT system with the six other universities in the state now governed by the Board of Regents under a single new governing board. Already, Gov. Phil Bredesen has expressed displeasure with UT's board of trustees on several counts. But even though he appoints the members of the board, he can't do much to change its composition in the short-run because the terms of most members have several years to run.

In concept, a restructuring of higher education in the state under a single governing board has advantages. Setting overall priorities, avoiding duplication and administrative streamlining are among them. But dismantling the UT system that includes campuses in Chattanooga and Martin along with the Health Science Center in Memphis would be highly disruptive, at least in the short run. Knoxville would no doubt remain the state's flagship university campus, but it would no longer be the hub.

Deputy Gov. Dave Cooley says it would be "way premature to talk about anything like that," and "I wouldn't foresee any consideration of it in the next 12 months." But several UT officials believe it's more likely to come up if Shumaker goes.

Shumaker's loss would also likely put on hold, or at least put a damper on, many of the initiatives he's set in motion during his first year on the job. These are mostly incorporated into his "scorecard" of goals for 2010 that cover everything from heightened student and faculty attainment to augmented research grants and private fund raising.

Shumaker's prowess as a fundraiser was one of the prime reasons for his selection. And increasing private contributions to universities is especially crucial at a time when state support of higher education is eroding with no improvement in sight. But the $1 billion fund-raising campaign that trustees have been envisioning would clearly be imperiled without Shumaker as its spearhead.

Along with connections between Knoxville and Oak Ridge, the many strengths of the Health Science Center in Memphis are pillars on which Shumaker has been seeking to build UT into a top-tier research university. But the success of this quest depends, in no small part, on the leadership of the Memphis campus. The ongoing search for a new chancellor there is bound to be impaired if Shumaker leaves Knoxville in a shambles.

Another Shumaker initiative that could be imperiled by his departure is his oft-proclaimed resolve to rid the university of "bureaucratic bloat." Heading up this effort is the man Shumaker picked earlier this year as UT's executive vice president, Steve Leonard. Leonard claims to have identified numerous ways to streamline the university's operations that could result in savings of $3 million in the current fiscal year and many times that amount in subsequent years. But there's an apparent "culture clash" between Leonard and old-line UT administrators. Absent Shumaker's backing, it's doubtful whether Leonard will have enough clout to get many of his recommendations implemented.

All of this is not to say that UT will suffer irreparable harm if further disclosure of improprieties forces Shumaker out. When J. Wade Gilley departed in disgrace two years ago, Eli Fly served admirably as interim president for a year, but his was essentially a caretaker role. The name most often mentioned to fill this role if Shumaker departs is UT's highly regarded vice president for agriculture, Jack Britt.

Moreover, with Loren Crabtree as its chancellor, the Knoxville campus couldn't be in better hands. If he weren't so valuable in his present post, Crabtree might also be a candidate for president. But academic administration is his quintessential strength, and it would be playing him out of position to ask him to assume presidential fund-raising, lobbying and ceremonial roles.

The media's role as watchdog is an invaluable one, and if John Shumaker is guilty of wrongdoing it deserves to be ferreted out. Still, the frenzied way in which some media seem bent on his destruction is bothersome to me. From what I've seen to date, this bent is trying to blow corner-cutting transgressions into a frontal attack on his integrity without regard for his many redeeming qualities and their value to the university. I just hope there won't be any further revelations that will force me to eat my words.