[Updated (2/12/2016, 5:12 p.m.) to note that the university offered to reinstate the professors late Friday.]
Over the last few weeks Mount St. Mary’s University of Maryland has been engulfed in controversy over its president’s handling of a controversial student-retention plan, which was first covered by its student newspaper.
The various legs of the controversy are now well known to higher-ed watchers: first the now-infamously blunt comments about unprepared students — “Instead of thinking of students as cuddly bunnies, you just have to drown the bunnies … put a Glock to their heads” — then the reported firing and attempted reinstatement of two professors for violating their “duty of loyalty” to the university by criticizing the plan. Through it all, critics of the president, Simon P. Newman, have been quick to say he failed in managing the furor.
The Chronicle spoke with three crisis-communications experts about how they would have suggested Mr. Newman handle each of the controversies he has faced. The conversations have been edited for clarity and length.
How would you have advised Mr. Newman in the wake of the “drowning bunnies” report?
Mr. Grabowski: The strategy he should’ve employed is what I call “running to the light.” Acknowledging that, “Yes, I used some aggressive language. Perhaps it was a little too aggressive in a university setting. But my intent is that the students that are here are getting a good education and are able to graduate because we owe them that.”
Ms. Hennessy: You’re dealing with a particularly vivid image. Talking about bunnies and Glocks, that’s not an image you’re going to forget for a while. I think our team or any team would advise him to stop, step back, and offer a sincere apology that really addresses the underlying issues, to really dig in and understand why the way his words were used caused offense.
Mr. Fladung: Our first line for every client is, “Tell the truth, tell it all, tell it first.” What if the president had gone to the newspaper and said, “Look, I want to sit down with you for a longer interview about the retention program.” Or maybe the president could’ve written an op-ed piece explaining his position. Take the opportunity to explain yourself. I have to believe, in every one of those instances, you don’t get what you have now.
What about the firings? How might you have handled those differently?
Mr. Grabowski: He needed to go to allies first. I would’ve gone to any faculty members he knows and at least inform them, “Look I need to take these actions, and here are the reasons for doing it.” He needed to build some alliances, and he didn’t do it. He has isolated himself by making unilateral decisions.
Ms. Hennessy: I don’t think we’ve seen the institution really come out and talk about why the decisions had been made. I think that’s the burning question. When you make a decision that doesn’t take into consideration those policies and procedures that have been laid out and followed, in 99 out of 100 cases people start to raise questions. If the institution doesn’t answer them, I don’t see how they go away.
What should Mr. Newman do now? How can he deal with that mistrust?
Mr. Fladung: He needs to communicate with his faculty. You have to be upfront and open to try to rebuild some of those relationships. You have to painstakingly address each stakeholder group to explain the action and why you did it. What you can’t do is try to bunker down and try to ride it out.
Mr. Grabowski: He has pretty much set his course. He doesn’t have many options at this point. If I was advising him, it’s not too late to put out olive branches and try to cultivate alliances or at least make sure his intentions are fully understood. Best case for him right now, over the next year, is that he has a difficult time leading and managing the institution. It’s going to be a very difficult time for himself. The worst case is that faculty, students, board, and a significant number of donors and alumni start to move for his ousting.
Ms. Hennessy: The president and board need to step back and have some in-depth conversations about what is in the best interest of the institution at this point. What is the plan, either to regain trust in current leadership or to make a decision if that can’t be done about what is the next step? Communications professionals say all the time, “I can’t communicate you out of this.” We can’t fix this just with interviews, statements, and talking points. It needs to be a leadership commitment to moving the institution forward and closing this chapter.
