So far as we know, the evidence behind former University of Arkansas spokesman John Diamond’s dramatic claims of public records destruction exists just as much as proof something illicit has gone on in the UA’s Advancement Division. From what’s been exposed so far, it doesn’t exist at all.
What lingers in the controversial multimilliondollar overspending of a UA division’s budget are questions. Big questions. And they center notso much on whether money was misspent or unaccounted for, but on the actions of UA’s leadership in the midst of scrutiny and on the overall management ofthe state’s fl agship university.
Despite what one hears on Fox News or CNN, questions are not evidence. They do not become proof simply by shouting the questions louder or repeating them incessantly.
What we know about the university’s response to scrutiny of its Advancement Division, prompted by a surprise revelation in 2012 that the division’s leader had overspent a $10 million budget by 40 percent, is it has been unnecessarily combative and defensive.
Chancellor David Gearhart has taken his leadership into the bunker, in the process giving his critics ammunition by creating more questions than answers.
To anyone operating without blinders, these are glorious days for the University of Arkansas.
For the first time in its history, the school posted enrollment this fall exceeding 25,000.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in construction is expanding the Fayetteville campus’ capacity to meet those students’ needs. The dean of admissions reported 43 percent of new students this year entered with a high school grade-point average of 3.75 or better and nearly 18 percent of the freshman class had ACT scores of 30 or higher. Both indicators are record highs for the UA. In July, the UA reported it had secured $108 million in private support in fi scal 2013, the third straight year donors have past the $100 million mark. It maintains its status as a competitive educational institution with a “proud legacy of internationally signifi cant scientifi c and intellectual achievements,” according to The Princeton Review. The accolades for student and faculty achievement continue to pour in.
To suggest this episode has caused irreparable harm to the institution is simply not refl ected by the level of support and accomplishment happening there.
And so it is Chancellor Gearhart has earned some good will through the school’s continued accomplishments; he has also earned strong criticism through his apparent resistance to external probing of his administration’s management. He’s made it look like there may be something worth hiding. Alongside a great harvest of higher education accomplishments for which the state can be proud, he has tilled the soil in which the seeds of distrust have been sown. Will it be enough to spoil the entire crop?
Gearhart mismanaged this crisis so far. He has at the least helped obscure what happened under his watch. He needs to respond by showing strong leadership for accountability and transparency. But has he demonstrated mismanagement of the university as a whole?
The evidence suggests otherwise.
This episode leaves us disappointed with Gearhart and his administration. But we’re not convinced the damage can’t be repaired, given the chancellor’s prior stellar record. If Diamond’s accusations are substantiated, that will be a different matter entirely.
Opinion, Pages 10 on 09/22/2013