A judge’s recent decision that Stony Brook administrators illegally bypassed its legislative oversight board has startling implications. Whether Stanley and the council were truly ignorant of the role the oversight council is supposed to have, or whether the council just quietly accepted his brazen bypass can be debated. The fact is the university’s administration is a government agency with the ability to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer and tuition dollars, and this council was instituted as an independent board to act as a check on big changes and developments at Stony Brook. In this instance it has failed miserably.
Facing a financial crisis, cuts to academics should be made absolutely last, but it’s one of the very first Stanley and his administration pursued. Months before hiring a consulting firm to explore where money could be saved, the administration went forth with slashing programs, cutting staff and virtually closed an entire campus full of classrooms. This last act left hundreds of students turned away in disappointment upon learning of the abrupt closure.
The mere fact that the university points to a council meeting that came months after the decision came down is flat out deplorable; both far too little, and too late. The judge ruled that Stanley made a hasty move and if the university’s checkbook was bleeding so badly, the council should have been made fully aware earlier. Having conducted interviews with a few councilmembers, it appears that the council is so out of the loop that it casts doubt over their ability to make informed decisions.
Back in May, council members sat in quiet acceptance as Stanley glossed over his decision not a single objection was raised. It appears either the council is uninformed and wholly removed from university operations or that they simply have failed to weigh the outcome of shutting down Southampton. Stanley said at the time that while it was too early tell, he thought they would grow to embrace the vast academic opportunities at main campus. But it’s a campus they didn’t apply to, and many of the students who made the switch have expressed thick resentment to the forced adjustment.
These developments have serious implications for the future of the university: without oversight, university administrators can slash and spend as they see fit. Imagine tomorrow Stanley announces your major will be scrapped, and if you want to get your degree you can move 50 miles west to New York City to graduate, and many of your favorite professors won’t be around anymore. It may seem farfetched but apparently, it could happen to you.
The Stony Brook Press
Latest posts by The Stony Brook Press (see all)
- The Pull List: May 3rd - May 4, 2013
- Stony Brook University Tops NYIT 6-4 - May 4, 2013
- Farewell Editorial - May 4, 2013
BRAVO!!!!! (Standing Ovation!) Thank you for putting in print what these students and we, their parents, have been trying to say for so many months. What has been done to the college and students of Southampton is only a preview of what can happen if PHEEIA is ever enacted, and these university administrators gain the right to autonomy without state oversight.
1) what does the student govt have to say about the judge’s ruling that Stanley broke the law.
2) what actions can the student govt take about Stanley breaking the law & the university council failing in its responsibility, (both of which caused irreparable harm to the 500 current Southampton students and the 300 newly-admitted students – total of 800 students harmed).
The arrogance of Stanley to say that the Southampton students would “grow to embrace the vast academic opportunities at main campus.” Most of them visited that campus’ open-house recruitment sessions when they were still in high school. They decided it wasn’t the right for school for them at that time & didnt apply to attend. How can he think that they’d just suddenly change their minds once he ripped away the school that was their perfect match? Stanely, the council and even SUNY central all failed to weigh the outcome of shutting down Southampton.
If the main campus’ “vast opportunities” had appealed to them, they would have applied for admission to that campus. They didn’t. Other kinds of opportunities were important to them – ones centered around environmental sustainability, a “green” lifestyle, & experiential learning. The main campus doesn’t have those. But it does have over-crowding, so they should move all SBU environmental and marine programs to Southampton. Use that campus for what it intended and free up main campus space.
What about the SUNY Trustees? They had the final seal of approval on the purchase of Southampton from LIU and they should have had the final say after the Stony Brook Council made their decision about the fate of Southampton.
Not only did Pres. Stanley undermine the Stony Brook Council, but he left all of SUNY open for criticism. This was definately NOT a SMART move, especially when SUNY was pushing for PHEEIA.
Pres. Stanley may have been trying to prove a point, that without the ability to increase tuition, drastic measures had to be taken. What backfired was that he made this decision unilaterally and he gave himself the autonomy that PHEEIA would give to all 64 campuses. This proved to be irresponsible, expensive and without “checks and balances.”
What Pres. Stanley succeeded in doing is setting a good example of why PHEEIA should not be passed.
Is Pres. Stanley a good fit for NY, I certainly don’t think so! Too bad we can’t vote him out in November!
The Press has done a terrific job in this volume reporting on the Southampton issue. It’s good to see the student newspapers speaking out against the administration’s failure in its resposnibility to its students. You are so right – every student should be vocal in expressing outrage for what has been done to this group of students. In life, if we stand by and stay silent when our neighbor is harmed, who will be there to stand up for us when we are the ones being harmed? If we on the main campus sit back and let this all slide by just because it didn’t really affect us and we weren’t the ones losing our programs and whole school, well, all I can say is we weren’t the ones today. If they get away with it once, they will again. And it may be our turn tomorrow. Students should be united and support each other. Where is the USG on this? I haven’t seen any quotes from them in any of the many recent articles, so that is a good question.
Where is USG on this?
On April 28, 2010 this is what USG posted on their website, under their Press Releases:
Undergraduate Student Government
At Stony Brook University
Stony Brook University, SAC Suite 202, Stony Brook, NY 11794-2800
Phone: 631-632-6460 Fax: 631-632-6834
SENATE RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE DECISION TO CLOSE
STONY BROOK SOUTHAMPTON
Whereas, the Stony Brook University community extends far beyond the physical confines of West Campus, including Stony Brook Southampton, East Campus and Stony Brook Manhattan;
Whereas, Stony Brook Southampton is a distinctly different entity from each of the other components of Stony Brook University, is a unique campus community in and of itself, and is a
vital part of Stony Brook;
Whereas, over 400 undergraduates consider Stony Brook Southampton their academic home, it is unfair and unjust to force these students to abandon their educational niches so suddenly and immediately, and the decision to curtail operations there displays incredible nearsightedness and poor decision-making by the University administration;
Whereas, the educational opportunities offered at Stony Brook Southampton are unique not only to the Stony Brook community, but to the larger academic world, thus it is impossible for students to
change schools and maintain their academic interests, and the administration’s current course of action is unkind and cruel to the students of Stony Brook Southampton;
Whereas, even if it were possible for now-displaced students to find new, fitting academic locales, the immediacy of this action callously prevents students from transferring;
Whereas, West Campus already faces housing and class shortages, and is absorbing $27 million in budget cuts, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for West Campus to incorporate over 400 unexpected students in addition to the incoming freshman class and transfer students;
Whereas Stony Brook Southampton is an integral part of its surrounding community, providing jobs and stimulating the local economy; and
Whereas a considerable amount of time, on the parts of student leaders, and money – over $78 million dollars – on the part of the University, have already been invested in growing and beautifying the campus and turning it into a thriving academic community since its acquisition;
Resolved, by the Senate of the Undergraduate Student Government –
(1) That as the Stony Brook Southampton students, academic programs and campus are important to the Stony Brook community, the decision to curtail the undergraduate program at Stony Brook Southampton was the wrong decision;
(2) That the government of New York State must increase its funding for Stony Brook University to an appropriate level, which would adequately allow for the continuation of academic programs; and
(3) That the decision to curtail operations at Stony Brook Southampton shall be rescinded, and the academic and residential programs shall continue.
Respectfully submitted to and passed by the Stony Brook Undergraduate Student Government Senate on this 13th day of April, 2010.
http://groups.google.com/a/stonybrookusg.org/group/press/browse_thread/thread/ac0abca90404ec0b#
Note: this is on pg 3 when you download the documents
USG HAS NOT BEEN HEARD FROM SINCE THEN!
They also REPEALED the Southampton Statues Act on May 21,2010; severing their ties with the Southampton campus even though there are still a handful of students on that campus who are paying the student activity fees.
http://sbusg.org/files/2009/07/Repeal-of-Southampton-Statutes-Act-passed-42710.pdf
The Southampton Statues Act link (pgs 91-97 of USG Codes):
http://sbusg.org/files/2010/09/USGC-Draft.pdf
It appears that USG has been very busy reinventing themselves over the summer session. With a new logo, new policies and some new faces; the posturing for position within USG has already started. So, USG let’s hear what you have to say now about Southampton.
Hamlin, I like your suggestion. The main campus doesn’t have any of the unique features and opportunities that Southampton offers. But it certainly does have over-crowding, so why not move the main campus environmental and marine programs to Southampton?? That’s a great idea. It makes a lot more sense to do that since Southampton is where the sustainability center and marine facilities are located. SBU administrators did this whole thing backwards. Making Southampton SBU’s environmental center too would be using the campus to its fullest advantage and it would relive some of the over-crowding at main. A Win-Win solution.
Most of the Council is appointed by the governor. They have a specific role with important duties but, according to comments made by some of them, they “don’t have the time” to inform themselves of the issues or even their responsibilites as a council. That is outrageous and an admission that should not be left to slide by. How can they perform their duties when they haven’t bothered to find out what they are? (see “Stony Brook Southampton Shuttered Without Council Oversight”
http://www.sbpress.com/2010/09/stony-brook-southampton-shuttered-without-council-oversight/)
The implications of those council members’ statements are mind-boggling. How many other unilateral decisions have been made by the president because of this council’s incompetence? The Student Government should be howling over this and contacting the governor about the extreme failure of his appointees. They should be demanding that the entire council be replaced immediately with people who would take their role and responsibility seriously.