RESIGNATION OF ANDREWS UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT: WHAT REALLY IS GOING ON?

By Elwin Dunn, with the contributions of Adventist Today editors

As previously reported by Adventist Today, on March 7 the Adventist News Network (ANN) reported the resignations of Andrews University (AU) President Dr. Niels-Erik Andreasen and two of his vice presidents. President Andreasen’s resignation was effective immediately, while the resignations of the vice presidents were to take effect at the end of the academic year. Adventist Today also reported that Andreasen is currently negotiating with Loma Linda University (LLU) to become the Dean of the LLU Faculty of Religion. Adding to the confusion, ANN reported a March 9 “specially called meeting” of the AU Board of Trustees that asked Dr. Andreasen to serve as president for the remainder of the academic year which ends on June 30.

Since the original announcement, many questions have been raised about a number of issues surrounding the announcement. Adventist Today has talked with faculty members, alumni, board members and interested observers. All responded with surprise and shock at the action of the Andrews University board of trustees in seeking the resignation of Andreasen and the two vice presidents.

The following is a report on important events taking place since the original announcement that may not have been reported in the church’s media outlets:

There was a prolonged standing ovation by Andrews University students and faculty in Pioneer Memorial Church when their president stood up to speak. It was Friday, March 10, and this was his first public comment since the events earlier in the week. He took pains to state that there needs to be a symbiotic relationship between the chair of the university board and the president, but that such a relationship no longer existed. As for his departure, he said, presidents come and go, only the timing was unusual.

Several sources indicated that it appears that even some board members had no clear reason for their action. At a meeting of the president’s cabinet and school deans Thursday with board chair Gerald Karst, one of those present asked Karst, “Was there an action of the board to request Dr. Andreasen’s resignation?” He responded, “Let me think about that,” then, “the board voted to accept his resignation.” Unsatisfied with that answer, the questioner repeated, “Was a vote [taken by the board] requesting him to resign?” But again there was no answer.

Issues of school governance and budgeting had been raised at the previous October’s board meeting. However, General Conference treasurer and Andrews University board member Bob Lemon, speaking earlier and publicly to one of the board’s subcommittees, had said the university’s budget was “one of the best-developed for several years.” University administrators also felt the goals earlier laid out by the board had been achieved.

Reasons given in the initial announcement were “the university needed the opportunity that new leadership would offer,” and amended this on the following Thursday to “the board was not satisfied with the rate of growth, nor with the bottom line of the budget. There was improvement, but it was too small and too slow.”

Interpretations: What Is Going On?

There appears to be divided opinions among Andrews faculty regarding the university’s future and its mission. The seminary, the denomination’s primary center for advanced ministerial training, is located on the Andrews campus. While the seminary is part of the university, its program is, by and large, unrelated to the instructional program for the majority of students attending Andrews. Funding for the seminary is almost exclusively from and by the church; and while the church also subsidizes the balance of the teaching program, in general, it expects that program to pretty much pay its own way.

Conflicting Academic Visions?

One faculty member states: “Our vision for Andrews has changed from teaching for service to the church and the community to becoming a research institution like the University of Chicago, Notre Dame, or the University of Michigan. This began as a change in mission in the late ‘70s. During the past fifteen years we have heard the proponents of this philosophy speak frequently of becoming a ‘great’ university. Doing this requires a focus on research. In order to foster faculty research, the school must allocate time when faculty are free to engage in that activity. So reduction in teaching loads and more sabbaticals result in reduced efficiency or higher costs, whichever way you look at it.

“Enrollment has been flat for decades,” the faculty member said. “Undergraduate enrollment has actually declined and graduate increased. Undergraduate students are the meat and potatoes, since grad programs cost more to offer. The real problem is that Mutch and Andreasen are committed to emphasis on research despite the cost.”

Another faculty member sees things differently, saying, “We do not compare ourselves with the University of Chicago, the University of Michigan, or Notre Dame University. But we do use schools such as Hope College, Calvin College and Wheaton College as benchmark schools. And they all have significantly greater internal support for research than we do.” He goes on to say, “Every historically ‘teaching college’ in the country has changed to put considerably more emphasis on research. This change is not unique to Andrews University, or even to Adventist education in general, as all other Adventist Schools (La Sierra, Southern, Southwestern, Walla Walla) have also placed a much greater emphasis on research. Several of them even changed their name to ‘University’ in order to more explicitly show this change. This trend is occurring in all historically ‘teaching colleges,’ and it is required by the accrediting organizations. Those schools which are not successfully making this change are losing accreditation.” He goes on, “to say that [Pat Mutch] is ‘committed to emphasis on research despite the cost’ is slanderous.”

The importance of research, as emphasized by these accrediting organizations, is that faculty who engage in research make better teachers. That is, faculty members who are active in their research community will be better able to transfer the excitement of their field to students.

Clearly, if some in the faculty have differing visions of what is important in the education of our young people, it would not be surprising that the individuals who make up the Board of Trustees might have an even more difficult time arriving at consensus. The majority are administrators, who often may be as much concerned with the financial ‘bottom line’ as with the quality and result of the educational process.

A tenured and long-term faculty member opined that when the board initially met last Monday most of the members had no idea Andreasen was going to be asked to leave. There may have been one or two who came to the meeting with that purpose in mind, but not until their comments on the issue were made did others on the board, for whatever reasons, then agree to go along with the process.

The university, under the leadership of President Andreasen, has been preparing to launch its campaign “Legacy of Leadership” to raise $100 million dollars for capital improvements. Regardless of what may be said in attempting to smooth this issue over, and no matter what the board’s reasoning, the removal of the president will likely put the success of this process in jeopardy.

There were likely some board members who were just as stunned as the Andrews faculty. Lots of wild rumors have floated about the campus, but paramount has been the question, “What were they thinking? Did they really think?”

Interference From Higher Church Levels?

Those individuals who were willing to share their understanding of events with AT truly believe the very lack of finesse or planning evident in the process belies the notion that the board action occurred as the result of higher administrative demands. Furthermore, individuals like the General Conference president, Jan Paulsen, long known as holding a special relationship with Andreasen, and the North American Division president, Don Schneider, were not involved in the deliberations.

These individuals go on to say that not only does what happened not make sense, the board acted more like “the gang that couldn't shoot straight.” They had no better plan to offer, the process was not thought through, and the results left not just the community, but anyone else with knowledge of the University appalled.

A number of alumni and other Adventist observers believe that what has happened is that denominational leadership is in a “crisis mode” for control of the church. They state that instead of church leadership showing evidence of becoming more inclusive, their positions are “hardening” on church beliefs like a literal understanding of the Genesis creation narratives, the authority of Ellen White, and several other “fundamentals.” They seem to decry any deviation from “old-time Adventist” understanding of the church’s fundamentals, and they particularly suspect teaching professors with advanced degrees.

Unrelated to the Andrews issues, but very much part of what is truly going to be a “leadership vacuum,” is the rather limited pool of available proven educational leaders in the denomination. There are leadership positions to be filled within the next few months at four of our senior colleges: Walla Walla, Southwestern, Pacific Union College, and, of course, Andrews

Andrews Recent Enrollment History

Since one of the issues raised had to do with enrollment figures at Andrews over the last few years, Adventist Today obtained these figures. There are various ways to report enrollments, but the one that makes the most optimistic presentation is the “head count,” including students who initially enrolled for any programs or coursework at the school. The official figures given by the education department of the North American Division (NAD) for beginning enrollments in the fall for Andrews University are the following: Year 1999—2,968; Year 2000—2,749; Year 2001—2,721; Year 2002—2,729; Year 2003—2,995; Year 2004—3,017. Figures for the Year 2005 have not been released by the NAD. These figures indicate that enrollment had peaked in 1999, but it dropped following the World Trade Center crisis in 2001 when foreign students found it more difficult to enter the United States for study. Since then Andrews enrollments have shown a slow but steady growth.

Still Unanswered Questions

Questions needing answers are: (1) Was Andreasen (and the board by extension) improperly maneuvered to terminate him as president? (2) If so, why was it so important to see him relieved of his position at this particular board meeting, in this particular way? (3) Had the board authorized its chair to ask for Andreasen’s resignation?

Other questions include: What implications does this action have on Loma Linda University? It too, is a General Conference institution, though its governance is more complicated for church officials by requirements mandated by various health care agencies and far more outspoken and politically powerful faculty, staff, and alumni.

The ultimate question is: What is a university? To whom is it responsible—the church, its students, their parents, or its faculty? The simple answer, is, of course, all of above, but in what mix?

Adventist Today will continue to explore the ramifications of this unfolding story and will issue reports as more information becomes available.