Troubling questions about Harreld

    I am sitting here writing because I am plagued by a host of troubling questions. First off, Why did incoming University of Iowa President Bruce Harreld lie on his résumé? The university president is someone we students and faculty are supposed to look up to and emulate. Does this mean that we will replace the policy on academic honesty with a “more business-aligned model”? Does this mean that if I really want that scholarship next semester, it is OK to lie on my application? It didn’t stop Harreld from landing a job that pays more than half a million a year before you even start thinking about benefits.

    Also, isn’t the job of the state Board of Regents to check into people’s résumés? Did the regents simply neglect to do so in this instance, or does this have something to do with why he was presented to the public at the last minute? Did the regents know about this fraud and hide the identity of Harreld so that the rest of us might not have time to find out about that, and other possible lies? Why DID they give Harreld such special treatment? Why did they ignore his lack of experience, his résumé lies, and the fact that finding someone on campus who thinks he is qualified to run the university would likely take you all day?

    The polls clearly showed that a very qualified candidate, Joseph Steinmetz, was clearly the most popular candidate with both faculty and others. In fact, everyone EXCEPT Harreld scored quite high in the polls.

    How did Harreld get to be the golden child of the regents? Why were they bending over backwards for him? Why did they hide him from the public? There must be a reason. Did he give them something? Did he promise them something? That would clearly be unethical behavior, but so is lying on your résumé, and he seemed to have no problem doing that.

    I make no accusations. I have no answers. I don’t like many of the possible answers to my questions. However, because of the “transparency” of the regents, all I have are questions and a situation that reeks like last week’s fish guts.

Craig Hall

UI Student

COGS’ statement on the appointment of Harreld

    The state Board of Regents’ unanimous election of Bruce Harreld as University of Iowa president shows how far the Brandstand-appointed regents are willing to go to destroy public education at the university. Harreld is completely unqualified for the position, and his behavior during the public forum was deeply disturbing — from saying he learned about the UI by reading Wikipedia to falsifying his credentials on his curriculum vitae. The hiring process was hijacked by the regents, resulting in a breakdown of the shared governance system with the university faculty.

    This action by the regents is a clear continuation of their attempts to defund and defame the UI while siphoning more money from the students they purport to serve. The regents’ hiring of Harreld underscores their view of the university as a business rather than an educational institution. As graduate student employees who teach the majority of classes at the university and conduct much of the research, we are opposed to a president who cannot effectively advocate for raising the quality of education at the UI, and who is neither qualified nor equipped to fill the position in which the regents have appointed him.

    We support the faculty in their efforts to advocate for the appointment of a qualified, experienced president at the UI.

Ruth Bryant

COGS press and publicity head

Presiding over higher education

  Aside from wondering why the whole UI presidential selection process was not run as a TV episode by “Shark Tank,” a few questions:

    If higher education cannot produce any leaders worthy of presiding over higher education, why would anyone want to preside over higher education, what qualifications don’t you need to be qualified (or unqualified) to get involved in a system that is remiss in so doing. Youth certainly ought to avoid running up a huge debt by getting engaged in a process that cannot produce anyone that is competent to get themselves greatly involved in it. It does appear that the Renaissance foundation of higher education and the Age of Reason from which more such sprung and some of which go bust.

    Sorry about the foregoing, but none of this makes much sense unless education is now going to be periodically receive the kind of bailouts that have long kept favoring big business that comes crashing down as the CEO golden parachutes out as the wall comes tumbling down.

Sam Osborne