Editorial: College presidents must engage in all university operations

Chancellor Holden Thorp’s tenure at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill will come to an end next month after five years, but this resignation is far from ordinary.

Thorp’s influence on UNC was positive, for one, because the university saw federal research grants for students rise exponentially, maintaining a balanced tuition for students and helping to increase the number of applications received by 43 percent. But, his influence in the betterment of UNC’s academic process was marred by the three-year scandal in the university’s athletic department.

The NCAA initially began to look into UNC’s athletic department for a rules-violation investigation in 2010. They soon discovered that the chairman of the African and Afro-American Studies Department, Julius Nyang’oro, was allowing students, including athletes, to take no-show classes. As a school that invests millions into its top-tier athletics programs to ensure its success and prestige, the scandal was utterly humiliating for UNC. It also highlighted a prevalent problem facing universities and their presidents.

After the scandal surfaced, UNC head football coach Butch Davis was fired, athletic director Bubba Cunningham resigned, and Chancellor Thorp neither had adequate knowledge on how to cope with the situation nor did he appoint the right executives to deal with such issues.

Granted, college presidents and executives often know little regarding their respective athletic departments, especially in the case of athletic scandals. But this is not a legitimate excuse for the lack of accountability university presidents tend to demonstrate when issues arise. The fact that presidents lack insight into the departments they govern is disastrous to the university and the organization as a whole.

University heads’ laissez-faire approach to athletic departments is widespread, and has been exacerbated by the dramatic rise in the profitability of college athletics.

Take, for instance, the case of Rutgers University’s basketball coach Mike Rice, who came under fire after video footage revealed that he physically and verbally assaulted his players. The university’s president, Robert Barchi, had little knowledge of athletic director Tim Pernetti initially writing off the severity of the situation concerning Mike Rice when he gained knowledge of Rice’s abusiveness. Pernetti simply called it a “first offense” punishment, fining Rice only $50,000. The fact that Barchi had little say in the initial punishment of Rice is unwarranted and exemplifies the disconnect between the head of a higher educational institution and its departments. Following the national attention and legal action that ensued, Rice was fired.

When athletic departments operate with unchecked freedoms, the decisions they make can have debilitating impacts on their respective institutions, which, at their essence, are built to reflect an academic focus. A solution is simple: Chancellors and presidents of higher educational institutions need to be more actively involved in their athletic departments.

We do not expect presidents to micromanage departments. That would be infeasible and impractical. But there needs to be a level of accountability and oversight. University presidents ultimately hire the executives and directors of other departments, and if there is a conflict that involves one of those departments, the chain of command should be responsible rather than just the department.

Given the case of UNC, the abuse of players at Rutgers and even some of Pitt’s recent athletics issues such as the firing of Mike Haywood in 2012, it is important that the president of a university strives to battle the ineptitude in different departments of the university.

If universities strive to promote their programs, whether academic or athletic, presidents should have more involvement by taking an active role in ensuring the creation of an ethical and organized chain of command. In the case of scandals and conspiracies, presidents who advocate the enhancement of university programs should also be held accountable when issues arise.