Legal Chalk-In Shut Down by Roth: An Account

I would agree about commitments being demanded now. Interesting that Roth wouldn’t commit to restoration of need-blind via the campaign. However, I think it’s pointless in trying to paint the administration/Roth as not caring about student access – they obviously do, otherwise they wouldn’t be concerned about maintaining grant size and loan reductions. (To those questioning whether it’s possible to hold the administration accountable about this, it’s actually self-motivating – more grants and less loans makes the aid packages more attractive, enabling admissions to get the students it wants. It makes sense that slowing an aid budget increase would allow for those that get packages to get bigger ones. Wes has no incentive to reduce packages to those it offers aid. The issue here is the # receiving aid.) They did, however, screw up with regards to transparency. Big time.

The more useful avenue is to get the Board and the admin accountable as to the details of the campaign and future budget projections. There is no transparency. However, that is separate and distinct from not caring about student access. It’s obvious Wes can’t afford need-blind now (and probably simply came to this realization in the past year – hence a change in tune since 2010). I think the best bet is to get accountability going forward – what are tuition increased modeled 5-10 years out? Budgets? Aid specifically? Our peers?

There’s a difference between arguing that Wes should re-instate 100% need-blind right now and arguing that Wes should be more transparent going forward as to when it can afford to re-instate need-blind. Wes can’t afford it now, period. Protesting that point is, as I said, pointless. A lot of the protestors are not doing a good job differentiating between the two (afford it now vs. transparency going forward). The former is a moot point, the latter is extremely relevant and important.

Protesting for general accountability is not as effective because the administration has been fairly transparent as to how it arrived to its current decision. However, it’s done shit to explain when it’s going to reverse the new policy. Complete fail.

From an alumni perspective right now, I’m not seeing a clear distinction from the protestors. Hence, my comment.

Wes alum: Thank you for your post. You have hit the nail on the head!

Wesleyan’s inept, unprofessional fundraising is THE problem underlying the need-blind admission debate—it’s the reason need-blind has disappeared, and it’s the reason need-blind will not be reinstated absent dramatic change.

The story you relay—of the Development Office failing to properly cultivate and acknowledge donors—is one I have heard again and again from other alums, parents, and faculty.

Among the most shocking incidents: donors receiving letters requesting multi-million dollar gifts (already a no-no—you make these asks in person) that are addressed to someone other than the recipient; donors receiving angry calls from the Development Office claiming six-figure pledges have not been received when the checks were sent months prior; donors setting up scholarships who never hear from the students awarded the scholarships because the Development Office has not encouraged communication between the students and the donors; and donors who request their gift be directed for a specific purpose, only to find their gift “lost” or “redirected” to another purpose.

And these are just the most outrageous stories—mostly I hear of experiences like your own, when donors have simply said, “I have not received the acknowledgement, respect, and professional care from the Wesleyan Development Office that I have from other institutions.” Needless to say, these donors respond the way you did—by choosing to send their dollars elsewhere.

As the relative of a (non-Wesleyan) university fundraiser, I find these stories appalling and, frankly, embarrassing for Wesleyan. What we’re talking about here is Fundraising 101: developing relationships, pitching demonstrated need, respecting donor wishes, and communicating in a clear and timely manner how donations are making a positive difference. Yet the current team in University Relations screws these things up time and time again. (Not to mention fails to utilize its strongest fundraising assets: faculty and students!)

If memory serves, the current VPs of University Relations and Finance have been at their posts for just over and just under (respectively) a decade. Both arrived in these positions with no prior experience in the field—ie, the first was not a fundraiser, and the second was not a finance person. Despite their efforts, and with one completed capital campaign already under their belts, Wesleyan has barely made a dent in its financial difficulties. It is time for new leadership with new approaches (and please, more professionalism!) in these positions. A top-down housecleaning is in order. (It’s very odd that Roth did not do this when he became president. Usually new university presidents bring in an entirely new set of VPs.)

The administration knows need-blind admission and socioeconomic diversity is of great importance to the Wesleyan community—the students have made this clear, faculty members have made it clear, and alumni have made it clear. (Every candidate for the alumni trustee positions begins his/her statement of intent with “I am dedicated to maintaining need-blind admission.”) Yet while the administration—and particularly Roth—have focused intently on re-thinking the marketing and branding of Wesleyan, they have not made a similar effort to re-think how Wes raises its money. Nothing will change until they do.

The reason nobody shows up is that we’ve all already been admitted, so we don’t have to worry about need-blind. That, and personally I’m busy all the time and don’t want to get on the administration’s blacklist.